Re: Photos (Jpg, Png-viewer) --- i don't like it because it launches sluggishly...

Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 28 Jul 2024 13:17:01 -0000 (UTC), Antonio Marques
<no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
 

J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:

Antonio Marques <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
 

Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:

On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 21:47:38 -0600, Tilde <invalide@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
 

Tony Cooper wrote:

On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 15:19:17 -0700, HenHanna <HenHanna@devnull.tb>

There is a  (Windows) tool called  Photos (Jpg, Png-viewer)  --- i don't
like it
because it launches  sluggishly....
 
Esp. in the last 5 days or so, i'm noticing that almost every day
i have to go to Properties to  change it back to
my fav. Jpg, Png-viewer tool
 
because the Windows update (?) is  pushing  Photos  on me.
 
is there a Fix for this???

 
I have thousands of images from .jpgs to .pngs on my computer.  I use
the (free) FastStone Photo Viewer.  It's not only a great image
viewer, but offers many other options from selecting by tagged images
to bulk re-naming.  It's set as my default viewer.
 
https://www.faststone.org/

 
https://www.irfanview.com/

 
I have both Faststone and Irfanview, and I like Faststone better.
 
What I remember last using Irfanview for was when I wanted
to change the default orientation of some pictures that were
usually wrong (downloaded from my off-brand phone).
 
IIRC, Faststone would rotate them okay for PC display by Faststone,
but they would be wrong when uploaded to Face Book.

 
Opening and saving a lossy format like jpg will usually result in... loss
of quality.

 
That's ancient folklore, from the times when 640x480 was a big image.
It may get noticable, but only when you order a huge reduction
in file size,

 
....no, it's the logical and unavoidable result of applying a lossy
encoding, all the more since the jpeg algorithm won't be the exact same
every time, and will throw out slightly different parts of the signal. It
will obviously be worse the lower the resolution is to begin with, but
that's a different issue.
 

The real point, though, is whether or not any degradation is visible
to the naked eye.  A .jpg has to be manipulated several times before a
change is visible even by zooming in on the pixels.
 
The degradation is there in theory, but not in practice for the most
part.
 

The problem is that it is cumulative and insidious and, to the point, there
is no need for it. If you know offhand that your source material won't
suffer more than a couple of iterations, then fine. Otherwise, what would
be the point of repeatedly reencoding a picture, or a video, or an audio
file?